Hi Aragorn,
I don't have the gear for regular blood glucose testing. My last fasting blood glucose lab test about a year ago was OK. I'd been eating more sugar for while then, I think. You could read TheBigPeatowski's thread, for a low fat high sugar story. I don't know what is typical, but it seems there is quite a range of different responses. Probably depends a bit on which systems have been run down/overwhelmed, eg liver. The better your liver glycogen storage capacity is, the more glucose you can store for later, and the easier it is to maintain stable blood sugar between meals. I think it is reasonable to make changes gradually and monitor effects. I have read stories of people who majorly improved their glucose handling by throwing lots of carbs (and less fat) at it, but I don't know what proportion this applies to. Peat has made the point that the pancreas requires glucose to generate new pancreatic beta cells. As jyb says, PUFAs tend to poison them
I understand Peat to say that many of the problems associated with hyperglycemia/diabetes are caused by the lack of energy resuting from difficulties in oxidising glucose, rather than from the high blood glucose itself, though that may also be problematic if it is prolonged. Also, insulin supplementation causes a number of problems of it's own, which are often attributed to diabetes.
If the cells are having trouble burning straight glucose, they are often able to produce more energy from a mix of fructose and glucose as in sucrose, honey, and many fruits. Sucrose (half glucose half fructose) should raise insulin less than a comparable amount of starches, eg white rice (all glucose), and so produce less of the 'bouncy' blood glucose some of us have experienced with more starch (eg reactive hypoglycemia?). Talk of high blood sugar in diabetes contexts usually means glucose, not fructose. I heard there have been times when fructose has been used to treat diabetes.
I think anyone adding large amounts of refined sucrose probably needs to really pay attention to getting plenty of all the other cofactors for sugar metabolism from other food - potassium, magnesium, B-vitamins, etc. Fruit brings minerals along with the glucose and fructose. Liver is a great source of several micronutrients, including one of the best sources of vit-A and copper. Oysters are one of the richesst sources of zinc. Cronometer can help make sure you cover your bases (as long as you don't believe its calorie recommendations).
When there is a lot of fat available in the bloodstream, either from a recent fatty meal or from fat stores liberated during stress (including low blood sugar stress), sugar oxidation is suppressed in favour of fat burning (Randle 'Cycle'). As jyb says, Peat recommends largely running on glucose (and fuctose), rather than fat.
Under low oxygen supply, cells will use glycolysis instead of oxidation to produce energy. Glycolysis is nowhere near as efficient as oxidation. One common effect of low metabolism and/or low carb intake is reduced CO2 production. Low CO2 levels (from low metabolism and/or hyperventilation) impair the oxygen supply to tissues (Bohr effect). A sustainably strong metabolism seems to require a lot of carbs.
There is some discussion of the points you raise in other recent threads.
Evaluating new information for yourself rather than accepting on faith makes sense to me. So far Peat's basic concepts are looking pretty ocohesive and credible to me. But who knows what we'll learn next? Testing things out and seeing how they work for you is a more reliable way forward than blindly following anyone.
I don't have the gear for regular blood glucose testing. My last fasting blood glucose lab test about a year ago was OK. I'd been eating more sugar for while then, I think. You could read TheBigPeatowski's thread, for a low fat high sugar story. I don't know what is typical, but it seems there is quite a range of different responses. Probably depends a bit on which systems have been run down/overwhelmed, eg liver. The better your liver glycogen storage capacity is, the more glucose you can store for later, and the easier it is to maintain stable blood sugar between meals. I think it is reasonable to make changes gradually and monitor effects. I have read stories of people who majorly improved their glucose handling by throwing lots of carbs (and less fat) at it, but I don't know what proportion this applies to. Peat has made the point that the pancreas requires glucose to generate new pancreatic beta cells. As jyb says, PUFAs tend to poison them
I understand Peat to say that many of the problems associated with hyperglycemia/diabetes are caused by the lack of energy resuting from difficulties in oxidising glucose, rather than from the high blood glucose itself, though that may also be problematic if it is prolonged. Also, insulin supplementation causes a number of problems of it's own, which are often attributed to diabetes.
If the cells are having trouble burning straight glucose, they are often able to produce more energy from a mix of fructose and glucose as in sucrose, honey, and many fruits. Sucrose (half glucose half fructose) should raise insulin less than a comparable amount of starches, eg white rice (all glucose), and so produce less of the 'bouncy' blood glucose some of us have experienced with more starch (eg reactive hypoglycemia?). Talk of high blood sugar in diabetes contexts usually means glucose, not fructose. I heard there have been times when fructose has been used to treat diabetes.
I think anyone adding large amounts of refined sucrose probably needs to really pay attention to getting plenty of all the other cofactors for sugar metabolism from other food - potassium, magnesium, B-vitamins, etc. Fruit brings minerals along with the glucose and fructose. Liver is a great source of several micronutrients, including one of the best sources of vit-A and copper. Oysters are one of the richesst sources of zinc. Cronometer can help make sure you cover your bases (as long as you don't believe its calorie recommendations).
When there is a lot of fat available in the bloodstream, either from a recent fatty meal or from fat stores liberated during stress (including low blood sugar stress), sugar oxidation is suppressed in favour of fat burning (Randle 'Cycle'). As jyb says, Peat recommends largely running on glucose (and fuctose), rather than fat.
Under low oxygen supply, cells will use glycolysis instead of oxidation to produce energy. Glycolysis is nowhere near as efficient as oxidation. One common effect of low metabolism and/or low carb intake is reduced CO2 production. Low CO2 levels (from low metabolism and/or hyperventilation) impair the oxygen supply to tissues (Bohr effect). A sustainably strong metabolism seems to require a lot of carbs.
There is some discussion of the points you raise in other recent threads.
Evaluating new information for yourself rather than accepting on faith makes sense to me. So far Peat's basic concepts are looking pretty ocohesive and credible to me. But who knows what we'll learn next? Testing things out and seeing how they work for you is a more reliable way forward than blindly following anyone.